Altered patterns seen over past two decades.

When discussing global warming, the public eye is mostly directed to global average surface air temperatures, but that’s just one slice of the climate pie. If you haven’t noticed, the ocean is awfully big, and it holds a great deal more heat energy than the atmosphere. In fact, about 90 percent of the energy that’s been added to the climate system by human activities has gone into the ocean.

Unfortunately, it’s hard to monitor that. There are a multitude of measuring stations for surface air temperatures, but our presence in the ocean is limited. With the advent of the Argo array—a fleet of autonomous, drifting floats that measure ocean temperatures—in the early 2000s, our data improved drastically. Still, the uncertainty has historically been greater for deeper waters.

In 2010, researchers identified an imbalance in our global energy arithmetic. If we measure the energy that's being trapped by increasing greenhouse gases, some of it seems to disappear—there wasn’t enough warming in the atmosphere or shallow ocean to account for all that extra energy— and there's been a deficit since 2004. (Though a later study suggested the mismatch might be within the margin of error for the temperature estimates.)

Some expected the “missing energy” would be found in deeper waters, but we didn’t have the data to demonstrate that. Meanwhile, the rapid atmospheric warming trend of the 1990s, boosted by strong El Niños, slowed in the La Niña-ridden 2000s, prompting some to posit that global warming was over and the scientists could all go home.

A new paper published in Geophysical Research Letters compiles the available measurements of the ocean’s heat content, including information on the deep ocean. The study finds that those deep waters have absorbed a surprising amount of heat—and they are doing so at an increasing rate over the last decade.

The researchers—Magdalena Balmaseda and Erland Källén of the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) and Kevin Trenberth of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research—assembled the available data from 1958 to 2009 using a reanalysis model. These models are used to reconstruct global conditions from available measurements. In this case, the reanalysis model focused on the ocean, though atmospheric conditions were also included to complete the picture.

The resulting ocean heat content data shows some interesting features. Drops in ocean heat content coincide with large volcanic eruptions, which pump sunlight-reflecting aerosol particles into the atmosphere for a time. But there’s also a small drop after 1998—a year known for the incredibly strong El Niño that pushed global surface temperature to a (then) high point.

That may seem odd at first blush, but it makes sense if you’re not fixated on the atmosphere. An El Niño involves above-average sea surface temperatures in the eastern Pacific, and some of that energy is transferred to the atmosphere, which becomes warmer as a result. All that warm water means evaporation, and evaporation means cooling of the ocean, just like sweat cools your skin.

After this period, ocean heat content continued to rise sharply—especially in the deep ocean. The paper states that “recent warming rates of the waters below 700 [meters] appear to be unprecedented” in the record. Supporting some earlier estimates, the data shows about 30 percent of ocean warming after 1998 taking place more than 700 meters down.

While it’s certainly useful to note the extent to which heat energy is accumulating in the climate system, it’s more interesting to ask why the deep ocean has taken such a large share of it recently. It seems to relate to changes in ocean circulation. A 2011 study indicated that La Niñas and a circulation pattern called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation could cause lulls in surface warming while energy is stuffed into the deep ocean. That may be exactly what we’ve experienced over the past decade. When those conditions change, we’ll see the effects in higher surface temperatures.

If you look at the graph closely, it seems like a large variation, but that's due to the scaling. The actual fluctuations are less than a trillionth of a percent from the average. Just keep these sorts of things in mind before getting to emotional over the data.

Where is the point of no return? If we hit it soon we may not have the technology or the time required to fix what we broke.

And all those denialists? This goes way way beyond covering up and outright lying about the harmful effects of nicotine. This time it could lead to the altering of biosphere in ways even us humans can't deal with let alone the rest of the Earth species.

The scary part is coming with the next El Nino, or the one after that. The heat we're dumping in the ocean doesn't go away forever, and when it wells up, it'll make 1998 look like a cool day in the shade.

Could be. Keep in mind we only have ~50 years of data for ocean temperature (and the older data is of questionable accuracy at that), so we don't really know how the ocean temperature is supposed to vary. We can establish such cycles for atmospheric conditions through various methods, but we have no baseline for ocean temperatures over hundreds or thousands of years (the ocean as a whole is extremely poorly understood.)

It's really fascinating to me how as the evidence continues to pile up, and the results become clearer and clearer, there are still so many people claiming that it's either a hoax or just bad science. I was reading an article a couple of days ago linking the unusually cold spring in Great Britain to Arctic melt. The comments on that article that I saw were about 50% denying the very existence of global warming, calling it a hoax, etc.

Velirap says: The actual fluctuations are less than a trillionth of a percent from the average

How do you arrive at that wrong figure? It's a 4-fold increase since 1998. Four-fold is not a trillionth of a percent. It is almost 15x10^22 Watts, which is 15 million billion billion(!) watts of energy. To claim this is a small percentage, let alone a small amount of energy, is dangerous and misleading.

It's really fascinating to me how as the evidence continues to pile up, and the results become clearer and clearer, there are still so many people claiming that it's either a hoax or just bad science. I was reading an article a couple of days ago linking the unusually cold spring in Great Britain to Arctic melt. The comments on that article that I saw were about 50% denying the very existence of global warming, calling it a hoax, etc.

Some of the same people were once responsible for the tobacco industry misinformation spreading.

It is amazing that the people in power can pull the same stunts over and over, and at least half the population are deceived again and again. That's what we get when we have an uneducated ignorant populace.

Velirap says: The actual fluctuations are less than a trillionth of a percent from the average

How do you arrive at that wrong figure? It's a 4-fold increase since 1998. Four-fold is not a trillionth of a percent. It is almost 15x10^22 Watts, which is 15 million billion billion(!) watts of energy. To claim this is a small percentage, let alone a small amount of energy, is dangerous and misleading.

The numbers are posted as an anomaly to a baseline - at least I assume so as there are no negative Joules lurking in the deep.

So the ADDED amount of energy to the ocean, just since 1998, is equivalent to 36.3 MILLION YEARS of US energy consumption. TO put it another way, you could power the US for over 36 million years with the extra energy stored in the oceans just since 1998.

It's really fascinating to me how as the evidence continues to pile up, and the results become clearer and clearer, there are still so many people claiming that it's either a hoax or just bad science. I was reading an article a couple of days ago linking the unusually cold spring in Great Britain to Arctic melt. The comments on that article that I saw were about 50% denying the very existence of global warming, calling it a hoax, etc.

It's really fascinating to me how as the evidence continues to pile up, and the results become clearer and clearer, there are still so many people claiming that it's either a hoax or just bad science. I was reading an article a couple of days ago linking the unusually cold spring in Great Britain to Arctic melt. The comments on that article that I saw were about 50% denying the very existence of global warming, calling it a hoax, etc.

We humans are causing the great mass extinction. I foresee a future need for mass investment in genetically modified organisms to repopulate these ocean dead zones.

We'll probably do that... and cause more unintended consequences.

All we gotta do to fix this is to stop trying. We need to stop the bad practices such as pumping CO2, or introducing invasive species, or using chemicals that don't exist in nature, and a million other things, and the ship will right itself. May our great great grandchildren be wise enough to realize that and brave enough to do it.

Why is every headline about climate changes screaming disaster? If things were cooling, people would be screaming disaster, if things are warming people are screaming disaster... the problem is, unless you are an intelligent-design-creationist, and full Goldilocks believer, there IS nothing magic (or indeed permanent) about our current CO2 levels or temperature ranges. It's just an accident of history that we have what we've had for the past few hundred years.

Your propaganda triggers should be awakened by the fact that projected effects are always negative (in reality that's highly unlikely) and speculations like ocean currents suddenly stopping are given serious consideration.

There has for quite a few years been an embarrassment to the Jonah crowd that the ocean temperatures just don't match the predictive models (economic models are questionable too). So they're trying to find some solution (other than the possibility that the model is overdrawn) so the next thing is a FEW deep ocean measurement extrapolated into an energy sink to account for the missing heat. Convenient, but at this moment, highly speculative.

Nothing wrong with research. But when you try to extract signal from noise when the noise is orders of magnitude larger, you should seriously question your results. Alas too much is treated as far too high a certainty.

I think I've identified the main (non-scientific) causes of climate change skepticism:(1) Lack of a consistent narrative - eg: what is, and isn't, a consequence of global warming? No-one seems to agree. Years of drought? Global warming. Floods and Storms? Global Warming. Too much snow? Global warming. What are the solutions, other than "use less energy"? This is difficult for anyone to follow, or accept.(2) Hyperbolic predictions by evangelists - which have generally failed to come true thus far.(3) Jetsetting junket lifestyle of climate change promoters and their inflated entourages - all of whom have a far more impressive Frequent Flyer point balance than the public they're lecturing.

Let's face it: the general public is never going to understand the dense scientific data and the "you'll have to trust us, we're experts" line no longer works in an era where bureaucratic incompetence and corruption are causing economic chaos in the developed world. If it's such a monumental issue, the climate change industry needs a PR message that resonates or apathy will continue to grow.

(And before anyone dismisses my opinion based on my screen name again, for the record, I'm not American.)

Why is every headline about climate changes screaming disaster? If things were cooling, people would be screaming disaster, if things are warming people are screaming disaster... the problem is, unless you are an intelligent-design-creationist, and full Goldilocks believer, there IS nothing magic (or indeed permanent) about our current CO2 levels or temperature ranges. It's just an accident of history that we have what we've had for the past few hundred years.

So wait, things just change without explanation and its NOT magic?

Quote:

Your propaganda triggers should be awakened by the fact that projected effects are always negative (in reality that's highly unlikely) and speculations like ocean currents suddenly stopping are given serious consideration.

This is a likely scenario if the trend continues. It doesn't mean its the only outcome. Being a skeptic does not mean one who denies evidence. Trend analysis is important, especially when we are most interested in the future.

Quote:

Nothing wrong with research. But when you try to extract signal from noise when the noise is orders of magnitude larger, you should seriously question your results. Alas too much is treated as far too high a certainty.

These published papers are not high school homework assignments. They are a result of months, if not years of research and analysis. Reading the paper might better help your understanding of the results. You would then be capable of articulating specific criticisms of the results, verses a dismissive handwave.

I know you are probably much too important to do any research yourself, so it may be best you leave it to the plebians who actually know what they are talking about.

I think I've identified the main (non-scientific) causes of climate change skepticism:(1) Lack of a consistent narrative - eg: what is, and isn't, a consequence of global warming? No-one seems to agree. Years of drought? Global warming. Floods and Storms? Global Warming. Too much snow? Global warming. What are the solutions, other than "use less energy"? This is difficult for anyone to follow, or accept.

I think I've identified one of the main (non-scientific - as there is no other kind) causes of climate change skepticism:

(1) Failure to understand that global warming does not mean that the weather where you are is just going to be the same as it always has been only x degrees warmer.[1]

Quote:

(3) Jetsetting junket lifestyle of climate change promoters and their inflated entourages - all of whom have a far more impressive Frequent Flyer point balance than the public they're lecturing.

[1] Although global warming will increase the average temperature of the entire earth, this does not say anything about the temperature or other conditions of any given place on the earth. For example, if a given place on the earth currently receives a certain amount of rain and that amount decreases as a result of changes in weather patterns due to global warming, then that location may experience drought. If however another place receives more rain than it used to as a result of the same changes in weather patterns then it may experience floods. A place that has relatively stable and predictable weather patterns may experience cyclic or chaotic ongoing changes to its weather... or vise versa.

[2] Just because you don't like a particular messenger it doesn't mean that the content of the message itself is false. If one looks around and all the other messengers, even the ones whose lifestyles are above reproach, are delivering the same message...

edit: Added the footnotes because I reread my original post and thought it was too dickish (although at the time I thought that I was responding in kind).

Why is every headline about climate changes screaming disaster? If things were cooling, people would be screaming disaster, if things are warming people are screaming disaster... the problem is, unless you are an intelligent-design-creationist, and full Goldilocks believer, there IS nothing magic (or indeed permanent) about our current CO2 levels or temperature ranges. It's just an accident of history that we have what we've had for the past few hundred years.

Your propaganda triggers should be awakened by the fact that projected effects are always negative (in reality that's highly unlikely) and speculations like ocean currents suddenly stopping are given serious consideration.

There has for quite a few years been an embarrassment to the Jonah crowd that the ocean temperatures just don't match the predictive models (economic models are questionable too). So they're trying to find some solution (other than the possibility that the model is overdrawn) so the next thing is a FEW deep ocean measurement extrapolated into an energy sink to account for the missing heat. Convenient, but at this moment, highly speculative.

Nothing wrong with research. But when you try to extract signal from noise when the noise is orders of magnitude larger, you should seriously question your results. Alas too much is treated as far too high a certainty.

While your chain of logic is sound, there's a major problem that arises with that line of thinking.

As a culture - we should either use more, less, or the same amount of pollutants. There is a correct answer to the question. If we take your line of reasoning, that this is an "accident of history", then we should not attempt to answer the question at all. Things happen because they happen and humans have no impact. Scientific consensus does not agree with this viewpoint.

To me it seems the article (and the paper) conclude that the ocean is warming. Is it not? How many years of warming would you like to see in order to meet the threshold of "signal to noise". If a "few hundred years" isn't enough, what would make you happy?

I think I've identified the main (non-scientific) causes of climate change skepticism:(1) Lack of a consistent narrative - eg: what is, and isn't, a consequence of global warming? No-one seems to agree. Years of drought? Global warming. Floods and Storms? Global Warming. Too much snow? Global warming. What are the solutions, other than "use less energy"? This is difficult for anyone to follow, or accept.(2) Hyperbolic predictions by evangelists - which have generally failed to come true thus far.(3) Jetsetting junket lifestyle of climate change promoters and their inflated entourages - all of whom have a far more impressive Frequent Flyer point balance than the public they're lecturing.

Let's face it: the general public is never going to understand the dense scientific data and the "you'll have to trust us, we're experts" line no longer works in an era where bureaucratic incompetence and corruption are causing economic chaos in the developed world. If it's such a monumental issue, the climate change industry needs a PR message that resonates or apathy will continue to grow.

(And before anyone dismisses my opinion based on my screen name again, for the record, I'm not American.)

You forgot one: the impending Ice Age. When I was a boy up through high school the public impression left by the climatologists was that we were overdue for an Ice Age and that one was right around the corner. I"m not certain if this was reflective of the breadth of the scientific thought at the time or was simply the idea that escaped into the zeit geist.

Here we are just a few decades later and now we're overheating and going to melt the poles and flood the world - if the thermal expansion of the oceans doesn't get us first (never mind the clathrate deposits!). I'm NOT a climatologist and so I must rely on those who are to help guide my understanding of such things - especially when they influence things very near to field of specialty (energy systems and propulsion).

However, when an entire field that's supposed to deal on time scales of decades or centuries (at least appears to...) pulls an "about face!" within my life time I have a hard time placing a lot of trust in the lot. This is not helped by the fact that I have yet to see numerous "long term" predictions of temperature change be met by reality. If you're not going to do much better than extrapolating on a 5-10 year time span how am I supposed to believe predictions based on those or similar models a century out?

All that said, I think we're starting to understand that humans have probably contributed to the warming of the climate since just about the time we started using fire to clear land for agriculture. We probably held off the most recent Ice Age and "may" be headed into a world of shit. However, I also know that human civilization also rose to where it is during a relatively long and stable global climate (no volcanism burying continents in miles of magma, no iceball Earth periods). Through Divine intervention or just sheer luck we've had pretty good weather for a long, long time.

For all those that say that we're heating the Earth's atmosphere at a rate never before seen I say "hogwash!" Things heated up faster during the Great Dying. Of course, over half the critters alive then appear to have gone extinct as a consequence...

hmm...no way a paid astroturfing effort just arrived all at once. No sir. No way at all...

If no one else does, I will cook something up that will monitor the Ars stories appearances in news aggregators (they probably use Google News?) and the timing and correlation with the arrival of the crazy. They can't be reading every site on the Internet.

I'd love to see IP info for all these people. Are they paid to puke their crazy crap all over their keyboard from home? Or is this coming from a cubicle farm at Heartland?

I think I've identified the main (non-scientific) causes of climate change skepticism:(1) Lack of a consistent narrative - eg: what is, and isn't, a consequence of global warming? No-one seems to agree. Years of drought? Global warming. Floods and Storms? Global Warming. Too much snow? Global warming. What are the solutions, other than "use less energy"? This is difficult for anyone to follow, or accept.(2) Hyperbolic predictions by evangelists - which have generally failed to come true thus far.(3) Jetsetting junket lifestyle of climate change promoters and their inflated entourages - all of whom have a far more impressive Frequent Flyer point balance than the public they're lecturing.

Let's face it: the general public is never going to understand the dense scientific data and the "you'll have to trust us, we're experts" line no longer works in an era where bureaucratic incompetence and corruption are causing economic chaos in the developed world. If it's such a monumental issue, the climate change industry needs a PR message that resonates or apathy will continue to grow.

(And before anyone dismisses my opinion based on my screen name again, for the record, I'm not American.)

You forgot one: the impending Ice Age. When I was a boy up through high school the public impression left by the climatologists was that we were overdue for an Ice Age and that one was right around the corner. I"m not certain if this was reflective of the breadth of the scientific thought at the time or was simply the idea that escaped into the zeit geist.

Here we are just a few decades later and now we're overheating and going to melt the poles and flood the world - if the thermal expansion of the oceans doesn't get us first (never mind the clathrate deposits!). I'm NOT a climatologist and so I must rely on those who are to help guide my understanding of such things - especially when they influence things very near to field of specialty (energy systems and propulsion).

However, when an entire field that's supposed to deal on time scales of decades or centuries (at least appears to...) pulls an "about face!" within my life time I have a hard time placing a lot of trust in the lot. This is not helped by the fact that I have yet to see numerous "long term" predictions of temperature change be met by reality. If you're not going to do much better than extrapolating on a 5-10 year time span how am I supposed to believe predictions based on those or similar models a century out?

All that said, I think we're starting to understand that humans have probably contributed to the warming of the climate since just about the time we started using fire to clear land for agriculture. We probably held of the most recent Ice Age and "may" be headed into a world of shit. However, I also know that human civilization also rose to where it is during a relatively long and stable global climate (no volcanism burying continents in miles of magma, no iceball Earth periods). Through Divine intervention or just sheer luck we've had pretty good weather for a long, long time.

For all those that say that we're heating the Earth's atmosphere at a rate never before seen I say "hogwash!" Things heated up faster during the Great Dying. Of course, over half the critters alive then appear to have gone extinct as a consequence...

WTF are you talking about? It's plainly obvious you don't understand any of this past a high school education 30 years ago, plus whatever inaccuracies and sensationalisms you've read in mass media since then, and yet you presume to share your opinions?

WTF are you talking about? It's plainly obvious you don't understand any of this past a high school education 30 years ago, and yet you presume to share your opinions?

That's kinda exactly my point... I've got a PhD in fluid mechanics and combustion not climatology. Yet, somehow climatologists must communicate their ideas to the public in such a way that people far less technically educated than even myself must make decisions that require sacrifice from themselves to avert some possible future disaster.

Question for anyone who IS a climatologist: 30 years ago did the community as a whole believe we were on the precipice of an Ice Age? Do most of you think the exact opposite now?